CAREY v. PIPHUS Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Students suspended without a hearing sued under § 1983. The Supreme Court held that a denial of procedural due process, without proof of actual injury caused by the denial itself, only entitles a plaintiff to nominal damages, not substantial compensatory damages presumed from the constitutional violation.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that plaintiffs in § 1983 procedural due process actions must prove actual injury to recover substantial compensatory damages. It rejects presumed damages for such violations, affirming that § 1983’s purpose is compensation and requires a causal link between the violation and the harm.
CAREY v. PIPHUS Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Two public school students, Jarius Piphus and Silas Brisco, were suspended from their respective Chicago schools for 20 days without a pre-suspension hearing. Piphus was suspended after a principal saw him with what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette. Brisco was suspended for wearing an earring, which violated a school rule intended to deter gang activity. Both students and their mothers filed separate suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the suspensions violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. The cases were consolidated. The District Court found that the students’ due process rights had been violated but declined to award damages, citing a lack of evidence that the students suffered any actual injury from the failure to hold a hearing. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the students were entitled to recover substantial non-punitive damages for the constitutional violation itself, even if their suspensions were justified and they proved no actual injury like mental distress. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the proper measure of damages for a procedural due process violation under § 1983.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a plaintiff recover substantial compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a deprivation of procedural due process without proving that the deprivation itself caused an actual injury?
No. In the absence of proof of actual injury, a plaintiff deprived Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proide
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May a plaintiff recover substantial compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a deprivation of procedural due process without proving that the deprivation itself caused an actual injury?
Conclusion
Carey v. Piphus establishes the foundational rule that § 1983 damages for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cill
Legal Rule
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff who proves a violation of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserun
Legal Analysis
The Court began its analysis by analogizing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt m
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To recover substantial compensatory damages for a procedural due process violation